Letters: Pakistan, sugary drinks, S.D. Bay fish, skilled labor

A two-faced game with Pakistan

Every time I read about our dealings with the Pakistani leaders (“Panetta warns Pakistan,” June 8), I believe more and more we should just take our ball and bat and go home now, instead of years from now. It feels as if person or persons high up in the Pakistani government are cleverly playing both sides.

Letters and commentary policy

The U-T welcomes and encourages community dialogue on important public matters. Please visit this page for more details on our letters and commentaries policy.

Evidence? They’re still mad at us for killing Osama bin Laden, and he was supposed to be everyone’s enemy! And then there’s been the finger wagging every time one of our drones has killed a number of enemy personnel! And now I read that we have a cache of IED detection devices (devices that could save lives on both sides) sitting in a warehouse somewhere because the Pakistanis won’t allow them to pass through customs!

Come on! What kind of two-faced game are our supposed allies playing at? Let’s just call a halt to the game now and take our equipment and go home! – Tom Di Roma, Oceanside

Market has thirst for Big Gulps

Esther J. Cepeda (“Bloomberg’s Slurpee,” Jun. 7) is right about two things: that many people would be better off consuming less sugar, and that she will infuriate those she labels the nanny-state haters. From there on, things go downhill fast.

Most striking is rhetorical question: “[W]hat about the right … to … reasonable proportions?” As Ronald Reagan famously said, approximately, there they go again – yet another synthetic “right” manufactured from wishful thinking and thin air.

Rhetorical or not, the question begs an answer, and it’s simply, there ain’t no such right, nowhere, nohow. Stores and restaurants serve what the market demands, and it’s demanding Big Gulps. That is their right.

There is precisely one argument in support of the Bloomberg policy: that it’s a healthy idea that in no way trumps the genuine right to make our own choices. – Ray Simard, Lakeside

Bay still a food source

Mike Lee recently reported on the dangerous amounts of chemicals in bay fish (Local, June 3).

This is not a surprise to anyone who has followed San Diego Bay’s toxic history. Human health risks were first confirmed by a study published in 1990 by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health. As a result, signs were posted on the bay’s fishing piers warning of the health risks of consuming fish – particularly for children, pregnant women and the elderly who are most at risk from toxics.

In 2005, Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) conducted a survey of fishers on piers near contaminated areas. Of the 109 fishers interviewed, 96 percent were people of color, 66 percent eat their catch and 41 percent regularly feed the fish to their children. Recent visits confirm that little has changed. Families still use the bay as a source for food.

The toxic chemicals (mercury and PCBs) present in bay fish are currently found at very high concentrations in areas at the NASSCO and BAE/Southwest Marine sites. Recently, regulators issued a cleanup order for these sites, and responsible parties immediately directed their flotilla of lawyers to appeal it.

We welcome studies and new fish advisories to protect the subsistence fishers and their children. However, without the cleanup of toxic sediments in San Diego Bay we expect “dangerous” levels of chemicals to be sustained in bay fish, and we will make zero progress in protecting public health and achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. – Ruth M. Heifetz and M. Dan McKirnan, Environmental Health Coalition

Defining ‘skilled’

In response to “The jobs conundrum” (Editorial, June 4), the apparent paradox between there not being enough jobs and the lack of ability of employers to find skilled applicants: The problem is with the employer’s definition of skilled, which is as follows: a bachelor’s degree in (subject) and (number) years of experience in the field. It suddenly becomes very clear why “skilled” applicants are in short supply. They are just being redivided up among employers, rather than growing the pie. I’ve even seen a significant portion of internships requiring experience.

Risky and potentially expensive first employment and job training are left to other employers which have become rarer and rarer to the point where applicants are left wondering if they exist at all. – Daniel Hall, Oceanside